I agree with Sergii, we shouldn't be dismissing this problem and going for single use-case solutions. We should also make sure that any non-trivial discussion of this problem is reflected in relevant blueprints (we already have a whole series on this topic, see link from Aleksey).
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:06 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk <sgolovat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I know customers are asking for special network for 'live migrations' and > ceph replication. However, that would be nice not to limit architecture to > couple of roles and allow the customers to model networking topology on > their own. > > -- > Best regards, > Sergii Golovatiuk, > Skype #golserge > IRC #holser > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Sergey Vasilenko <svasile...@mirantis.com> > wrote: >> >> I propose following solution. Make multiple network roles (i.e. >> storage/ceph/sync, storage/ceph/access) for possibility of divide this >> networks. By default those roles may be mapped to the management network. >> >> /sv >> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Dmitry Borodaenko -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
